This story in today's TP has a couple of head shaking items from an interview with one of my least favorite people ever, Dick Cheney.
Cheney said he now recognizes that the insurgency in Iraq was not "in its last throes," as he said in May 2005. "I think there is no question but that we did not anticipate an insurgency that would last this long," the vice president said.
"It's still difficult. Obviously, major, major work to do is ahead of us. But the fact is, the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power. Think where we'd be if he was still there," Cheney said.
Apparently some other people anticipated the insurgency, and were told to shut up about it. And the world is better off now? Could have fooled me. Maybe he means for Haliburton stock holders and defense contractors.
He said the U.S. had done a good job on "homeland security, in terms of the terrorist surveillance program we put in place, the financial tracking we put in place, and because of our detainee policy."
Cheney disputed that he ever directly said Saddam had any role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
He defended his past statements both on links between Iraq and the al-Qaida network, and on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, saying the pronouncements were based on the best intelligence he had at the time. No such weapons were found, nor is there clear evidence of links between Saddam's government and Osama bin Laden's organization.
Is he really claiming our detainee policy has been a good thing? I thought the Supreme Court told the admin that it needed to change and that they were illegal.
Asked if the U.S. still would have invaded Iraq had the CIA told Bush and him that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in 2003, Cheney answered yes. He said Iraq had the capability of obtaining such weapons and would have done so once U.N. penalties were eased.
We don't need any stinking justification. If we want to go to war then by golly we are going to war! You tell 'em Dick.